Menu
Home Explore People Places Arts History Plants & Animals Science Life & Culture Technology
On this page
Technology readiness level
Method for estimating the maturity of technologies

Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) are a standardized scale from 1 to 9 used to assess the maturity of technologies, originally developed by NASA in the 1970s. The US Department of Defense adopted TRLs in the early 2000s, followed by the European Space Agency and the European Commission, which promoted the scale in EU-funded projects like Horizon 2020. In 2013, the ISO formalized TRLs with the ISO 16290:2013 standard. However, criticism exists regarding its broader application, as noted in discussions published by the European Union, which argue that TRL’s clarity diminished outside its original aerospace context.

Related Image Collections Add Image
Profiles
1 Image
We don't have any YouTube videos related to Technology readiness level yet.
We don't have any PDF documents related to Technology readiness level yet.
We don't have any Books related to Technology readiness level yet.
We don't have any archived web articles related to Technology readiness level yet.

Definitions

TRLNASA usage8European Union9
1Basic principles observed and reportedBasic principles observed
2Technology concept and/or application formulatedTechnology concept formulated
3Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of conceptExperimental proof of concept
4Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environmentTechnology validated in lab
5Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environmentTechnology validated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
6System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)Technology demonstrated in relevant environment (industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies)
7System prototype demonstration in a space environmentSystem prototype demonstration in operational environment
8Actual system completed and "flight qualified" through test and demonstration (ground or space)System complete and qualified
9Actual system "flight proven" through successful mission operationsActual system proven in operational environment (competitive manufacturing in the case of key enabling technologies; or in space)

Assessment tools

A Technology Readiness Level Calculator was developed by the United States Air Force.10 This tool is a standard set of questions implemented in Microsoft Excel that produces a graphical display of the TRLs achieved. This tool is intended to provide a snapshot of technology maturity at a given point in time.11

The Defense Acquisition University (DAU) Decision Point (DP) Tool originally named the Technology Program Management Model was developed by the United States Army.12 and later adopted by the DAU. The DP/TPMM is a TRL-gated high-fidelity activity model that provides a flexible management tool to assist Technology Managers in planning, managing, and assessing their technologies for successful technology transition. The model provides a core set of activities including systems engineering and program management tasks that are tailored to the technology development and management goals. This approach is comprehensive, yet it consolidates the complex activities that are relevant to the development and transition of a specific technology program into one integrated model.13

Uses

The primary purpose of using technology readiness levels is to help management in making decisions concerning the development and transitioning of technology. It is one of several tools that are needed to manage the progress of research and development activity within an organization.14

Among the advantages of TRLs:15

  • Provides a common understanding of technology status
  • Risk management
  • Used to make decisions concerning technology funding
  • Used to make decisions concerning transition of technology

Some of the characteristics of TRLs that limit their utility:16

  • Readiness does not necessarily fit with appropriateness or technology maturity
  • A mature product may possess a greater or lesser degree of readiness for use in a particular system context than one of lower maturity
  • Numerous factors must be considered, including the relevance of the products' operational environment to the system at hand, as well as the product-system architectural mismatch

TRL models tend to disregard negative and obsolescence factors. There have been suggestions made for incorporating such factors into assessments.17

For complex technologies that incorporate various development stages, a more detailed scheme called the Technology Readiness Pathway Matrix has been developed going from basic units to applications in society. This tool aims to show that a readiness level of a technology is based on a less linear process but on a more complex pathway through its application in society.18

History

Technology readiness levels were conceived at NASA in 1974 and formally defined in 1989. The original definition included seven levels, but in the 1990s NASA adopted the nine-level scale that subsequently gained widespread acceptance.19

Original NASA TRL Definitions (1989)20

Level 1 – Basic Principles Observed and Reported Level 2 – Potential Application Validated Level 3 – Proof-of-Concept Demonstrated, Analytically and/or Experimentally Level 4 – Component and/or Breadboard Laboratory Validated Level 5 – Component and/or Breadboard Validated in Simulated or Realspace Environment Level 6 – System Adequacy Validated in Simulated Environment Level 7 – System Adequacy Validated in Space

The TRL methodology was originated by Stan Sadin at NASA Headquarters in 1974.21 Ray Chase was then the JPL Propulsion Division representative on the Jupiter Orbiter design team. At the suggestion of Stan Sadin, Chase used this methodology to assess the technology readiness of the proposed JPL Jupiter Orbiter spacecraft design. Later Chase spent a year at NASA Headquarters helping Sadin institutionalize the TRL methodology. Chase joined ANSER in 1978, where he used the TRL methodology to evaluate the technology readiness of proposed Air Force development programs. He published several articles during the 1980s and 90s on reusable launch vehicles utilizing the TRL methodology.22

These documented an expanded version of the methodology that included design tools, test facilities, and manufacturing readiness on the Air Force Have Not program. The Have Not program manager, Greg Jenkins, and Ray Chase published the expanded version of the TRL methodology, which included design and manufacturing. Leon McKinney and Chase used the expanded version to assess the technology readiness of the ANSER team's Highly Reusable Space Transportation (HRST) concept.23 ANSER also created an adapted version of the TRL methodology for proposed Homeland Security Agency programs.24

The United States Air Force adopted the use of technology readiness levels in the 1990s.

In 1995, John C. Mankins, NASA, wrote a paper that discussed NASA's use of TRL, extended the scale, and proposed expanded descriptions for each TRL.25 In 1999, the United States General Accounting Office produced an influential report26 that examined the differences in technology transition between the DOD and private industry. It concluded that the DOD takes greater risks and attempts to transition emerging technologies at lesser degrees of maturity than does private industry. The GAO concluded that use of immature technology increased overall program risk. The GAO recommended that the DOD make wider use of technology readiness levels as a means of assessing technology maturity prior to transition.27

In 2001, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology issued a memorandum that endorsed use of TRLs in new major programs. Guidance for assessing technology maturity was incorporated into the Defense Acquisition Guidebook.28 Subsequently, the DOD developed detailed guidance for using TRLs in the 2003 DOD Technology Readiness Assessment Deskbook.

Because of their relevance to Habitation, 'Habitation Readiness Levels (HRL)' were formed by a group of NASA engineers (Jan Connolly, Kathy Daues, Robert Howard, and Larry Toups). They have been created to address habitability requirements and design aspects in correlation with already established and widely used standards by different agencies, including NASA TRLs.2930

More recently, Dr. Ali Abbas, Professor of chemical engineering and Associate Dean of Research at the University of Sydney and Dr. Mobin Nomvar, a chemical engineer and commercialisation specialist, have developed Commercial Readiness Level (CRL), a nine-point scale to be synchronised with TRL as part of a critical innovation path to rapidly assess and refine innovation projects to ensure market adoption and avoid failure.31

In the European Union

The European Space Agency32 adopted the TRL scale in the mid-2000s. Its handbook33 closely follows the NASA definition of TRLs. In 2022, the ESA TRL Calculator was released to the public. The universal usage of TRL in EU policy was proposed in the final report of the first High Level Expert Group on Key Enabling Technologies,34 and it was implemented in the subsequent EU framework program, called H2020, running from 2013 to 2020.35 This means not only space and weapons programs, but everything from nanotechnology to informatics and communication technology.

See also

Online

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Technology readiness level.

References

  1. Mihaly, Heder (September 2017). "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation" (PDF). The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf ↩

  2. Mihaly, Heder (September 2017). "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation" (PDF). The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf ↩

  3. "Technology Readiness Levels Handbook for Space Applications" (PDF) (1 revision 6 ed.). ESA. September 2008. TEC-SHS/5551/MG/ap. https://artes.esa.int/sites/default/files/TRL_Handbook.pdf ↩

  4. Mihaly, Heder (September 2017). "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation" (PDF). The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf ↩

  5. Mihaly, Heder (September 2017). "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation" (PDF). The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf ↩

  6. "The TRL Scale as a Research & Innovation Policy Tool, EARTO Recommendations" (PDF). European Association of Research & Technology Organisations. 30 April 2014. https://www.earto.eu/wp-content/uploads/The_TRL_Scale_as_a_R_I_Policy_Tool_-_EARTO_Recommendations_-_Final.pdf ↩

  7. Mihaly, Heder (September 2017). "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation" (PDF). The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf ↩

  8. "Technology Readiness Level Definitions" (PDF). nasa.gov. Retrieved 6 September 2019. This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain. https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf ↩

  9. "Technology readiness levels (TRL); Extract from Part 19 - Commission Decision C(2014)4995" (PDF). ec.europa.eu. 2014. Retrieved 11 November 2019. Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/annexes/h2020-wp1415-annex-g-trl_en.pdf ↩

  10. Nolte, William L.; et al. (20 October 2003). "Technology Readiness Level Calculator, Air Force Research Laboratory, presented at the NDIA Systems Engineering Conference". Archived from the original on 13 May 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150513154728/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003systems/nolte.ppt ↩

  11. "Technology Assessment Calculator". https://acc.dau.mil/CommunityBrowser.aspx?id=320594 ↩

  12. Craver, Jeffrey T. (28 Dec 2020). "Decision Point / Technology Program Management Model, DAU". Defense Acquisition University. https://www.dau.edu/tools/t/Decision-Point ↩

  13. Jeff, Craver. "Decision Point / TPMM - Technology Program Management Model (only available to DOD components)". https://www.dau.edu/tools/t/Decision-Point ↩

  14. Christophe Deutsch; Chiara Meneghini; Ozzy Mermut; Martin Lefort. "Measuring Technology Readiness to improve Innovation Management" (PDF). INO. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-06-02. Retrieved 2011-11-27. https://web.archive.org/web/20120602044401/http://www.ino.ca/Docs/Documents/publications/scientifiques/Deutch_Measuring%20technology%20readiness%20to%20improve%20innovation%20management.pdf ↩

  15. Ben Dawson (31 October 2007). "The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations" (PDF). Human Factors Integration Design Technology Centre. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 April 2012. https://web.archive.org/web/20120426001612/http://www.hfidtc.com/research/process/reports/phase-2/HFIDTC-2-12-2-1-1-tech-organisation.pdf ↩

  16. Ben Dawson (31 October 2007). "The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations" (PDF). Human Factors Integration Design Technology Centre. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 April 2012. https://web.archive.org/web/20120426001612/http://www.hfidtc.com/research/process/reports/phase-2/HFIDTC-2-12-2-1-1-tech-organisation.pdf ↩

  17. Ricardo Valerdi; Ron J. Kohl (March 2004). An Approach to Technology Risk Management (PDF). Engineering Systems Division Symposium MIT, Cambridge, MA, March 29-31, 2004. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.402.359.[dead link] https://www.academia.edu/download/3237659/TRL_paper_ESD_Valerdi_Kohl.pdf ↩

  18. Vincent Jamier; Christophe Aucher (April 2018). "Demystifying Technology Readiness Levels for Complex Technologies". Leitat Projects Blog. Archived from the original on 2021-02-03. Retrieved 2018-08-28. https://web.archive.org/web/20210203000637/https://projects.leitat.org/demystifying-trls-for-complex-technologies/ ↩

  19. Banke, Jim (20 August 2010). "Technology Readiness Levels Demystified". NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html ↩

  20. Sadin, Stanley R.; Povinelli, Frederick P.; Rosen, Robert (October 1, 1988). The NASA technology push towards future space mission systems. International Astronautical Congress, 39th, Bangalore, India, Oct. 8-15, 1988. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?print=yes&R=19890030268 ↩

  21. Banke, Jim (20 August 2010). "Technology Readiness Levels Demystified". NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/trl_demystified.html ↩

  22. Chase, R.L. (26 June 1991). Methodology for Assessing Technological and Manufacturing Readiness of NASP-Technology Enabled Vehicles. 27th Joint Propulsion Conference, June 24-26, 1991, Sacramento CA. doi:10.2514/6.1991-2389. AIAA 91-2389. http://papers.sae.org/965565/ ↩

  23. R. L. Chase; L. E. McKinney; H. D. Froning, Jr.; P. Czysz; et al. (January 1999). "A comparison of selected air-breathing propulsion choices for an aerospace plane". AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 458. American Institute of Physics. pp. 1133–8. doi:10.1063/1.57719. Archived from the original on 2016-03-11. Retrieved 2018-08-28. https://web.archive.org/web/20160311074302/http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.57719 ↩

  24. "Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Readiness Level Calculator (Ver. 1.1) - Final Report and User"s Manual" (PDF). Homeland Security Institute. September 30, 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 26, 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20100826124930/http://www.homelandsecurity.org/hsireports/DHS_ST_RL_Calculator_report20091020.pdf ↩

  25. Mihaly, Heder (September 2017). "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation" (PDF). The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf ↩

  26. "Best Practices: Better Management of Technology Can Improve Weapon System Outcomes" (PDF). General Accounting Office. July 1999. GAO/NSIAD-99-162. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-02-24. Retrieved 2018-08-28. https://web.archive.org/web/20210224141905/https://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/ns991620.pdf ↩

  27. Defense Acquisition Guidebook Archived 2012-04-25 at the Wayback Machine http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf ↩

  28. Defense Acquisition Guidebook Archived 2012-04-25 at the Wayback Machine http://at.dod.mil/docs/DefenseAcquisitionGuidebook.pdf ↩

  29. Häuplik-Meusburger and Bannova (2016). Space Architecture Education for Engineers and Architects. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-19278-9. 978-3-319-19278-9 ↩

  30. Cohen, Marc (2012). Mockups 101: Code and Standard Research for Space Habitat Analogues. AIAA Space 2012 Conference Pasadena, California. ↩

  31. "Better Management of Commercialisation and Innovation". Australian Manufacturing. https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/better-management-of-innovation-and-commercialisation-by-mobin-monvar ↩

  32. Mihaly, Heder (September 2017). "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation" (PDF). The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf ↩

  33. "Technology Readiness Levels Handbook for Space Applications" (PDF) (1 revision 6 ed.). ESA. September 2008. TEC-SHS/5551/MG/ap. https://artes.esa.int/sites/default/files/TRL_Handbook.pdf ↩

  34. "High-Level Expert Group on Key Enabling Technologies – Final Report". June 2011. p. 31. Retrieved March 16, 2020. http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/11283/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native ↩

  35. Mihaly, Heder (September 2017). "From NASA to EU: the evolution of the TRL scale in Public Sector Innovation" (PDF). The Innovation Journal. 22: 1–23. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 11, 2017. https://web.archive.org/web/20171011071816/https://www.innovation.cc/discussion-papers/22_2_3_heder_nasa-to-eu-trl-scale.pdf ↩